1,516
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: +
Talk:Exact sciences (view source)
Revision as of 04:38, February 22, 2009
, 04:38, February 22, 2009→Creation Science
Though I am a creationist, I would think that creation science should probably go into the same category as evolution, as a fuzzy subject. Anyone else have any thoughts? --[[User:JoshuaStanley|JoshuaStanley]] 22:28, 21 February 2009 (EST)
Though I am a creationist, I would think that creation science should probably go into the same category as evolution, as a fuzzy subject. Anyone else have any thoughts? --[[User:JoshuaStanley|JoshuaStanley]] 22:28, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:I agree, as well as [[baraminology]]. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|<sup>Hello!</sup>]] 23:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)
:I agree, as well as [[baraminology]]. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|<sup>Hello!</sup>]] 23:05, 21 February 2009 (EST)
::I'd agree with both of the above. If aspects of "exact" science the the validity of radiological dating is to be called into question on CP, then I don't see how anyone can consider creation science or baraminology to be "exact" sciences either. They don't have to be dismissed out of hand, but they certainly aren't as exact as mathematics or basic chemistry. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 23:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)